Different people have different definitions of the words I guess. To me, if it failed, it isn’t a hard read. Therefore, only successful ones are considered hard reads. Therefore %100 of hard reads work. The ones that don’t work aren’t hard reads. The ultimate option select 
Los japoneses le llaman a eso parte del ‘yomi’. Basicamente, quiere decir que has observado bien las tendencias de el oponente, y sabes exactamente lo que va ha hacer el oponente antes que lo haga y lla tienes una respuesta lista pre-meditada para el oponente en esta situacion. Puede ser llamado intuicion tambien.
Por ejemplo, tumbas a Jago para el piso, sabes que el no va hacer un shoryuken porque lo sabes, y mientras se levanta lo tiras para el piso otra vez, pero esta vez sabes que el si lo va hacer, bloqueas, y le metes un combo por la cabeza. Lla isistes 2 ‘hard reads’ en esta situacion.
1 Like
I think it’s a rather dumb term, to be frank. I’m with the OP at this point; it’s a successful read period. There’s no reason to call it “hard” for any reason.
Hard read is easier and faster to pronounce than successful read 
When I want to clarify a successful read from a failed read I just use the words good or bad (a good read vs. a bad read)… It makes more sense.
2 Likes
The difference between a hard read and a regular read is that you do something with a harsher punishment should you be wrong. For example, i think my opponent is going to throw me
Reads: Tech throw, neutral jump, backdash.
Hard reads: DP, throw invincible special.
1 Like
I see what you mean, but at that point it’s just needlessly complex or overcomplicated when it doesn’t need to be.
When you use ultra against an opponent, you just won. Or you performed an ultra.
Is calling it ultra making it complicated? No
Neither is the term hard read.
You call it complicated
I call it accurate
Well if the term didn’t exist things would get more complicated.
“Why’d you dp?”
“I thought he was gonna throw.”
“Why didn’t you do something less riskier that also avoided the throw?”
“I don’t know, i thought i had the read and wanted the higher reward of being right to lead to big damage despite there being simpler options.”
Vs
“I made a hard read.”
A read is a read period. You get it successfully or you don’t. If it works, nothing else matters.
Geek, leave it be. Please.
Yes, and a read with a higher risk reward factor is a hard read.
So, why isn’t there a “soft” read then?
Because there’s only two categories, a read with high risk and a read with low risk. If there was a read with zero risk well then it’s no longer a read, it’s just something you throw out randomly because there’s no risk.
If there’s no risk and it’s a read, it isn’t random…
By definition, a soft-read would/should be something like the aforementioned jump/back-dash/tech throw, but nobody ever uses that term. My argument here is that if there’s no such thing as a soft read, why should there be 1 for a hard read?
A read is a read is a read.
If there was no risk you wouldn’t need to read your opponent, you could just throw it out. You could use said riskless move when you think you have the read but it’s not really necessary, hence just randomly throwing it out.
And the reason there is a term for one and not the other is because that’s what 25+ years of fighting game players have come up with. These terms didn’t rise up because someone randomly decided we should name stuff, they came out of necessity, and necessity required hard read to come into existence.
What I’m saying is that if there’s no risk involved, it’s not really a hard read at all because you know it will work. There has to be a certain amount of calculated risk involved. I say calculated, because you can plan for it, but the risk will still be there.
I make hard reads with Aganos all of the time when I don’t have to, because I see my opponent’s habits. For example, I fight opponents who know how to easily counter a ruin or natural disaster when at range, but I can still often get them because I can see that they’re often trying to do something on wakeup and can punish them with said risky moves.
I know there’s a reason for the term, but I still think it’s a silly, and unnecessary, reason. 25+ years of FGs have given us things like quarter-circles and half-circles, and DP-motions when we didn’t really need them, but we still have them - that doesn’t mean that’s a good thing though. It just is.
Just because it’s the status quo, it doesn’t necessarily make it immune to change.
Geek, you are discussing about a widely accepted term during decades. you are being adamant about your opinion. You are doing it AGAIN.
A read is a read, and a hard read is s hard read. please,drop it
1 Like
What can I say? I’m adamant about change and upsetting the status quo.
Aren’t you a teacher? Doesn’t that go against your principles?